The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) provides a vehicle for any subscriber to telephonically connect with any other subscriber. As any calling party can place a call to any called party, a calling party can place unwanted communications to others. Such unwanted communications may constitute a violation of telemarketing laws, may constitute a crime, as in the case of a bomb threat, or may be placed to further other unlawful activity. A single caller may place thousands of unwanted and unlawful communications, as auto-dialing capability facilitates callers ability to call more frequently and at inappropriate times of day. These unwanted or unlawful calls may cause harm to persons and/or property.
As a result of the ease and anonymity involved in telephonic communication, it has increasingly become a preferred method for bad actors to engage in or support unlawful activity. Complaints regarding unwanted or unlawful telephonic communications such as harassing, threatening, and telemarketing phone calls, faxes and pre-recorded messages have led to significant federal and state laws and regulations to protect subscribers from these abusive practices. Similar laws and regulations exist or have been proposed in other countries, including Canada, Australia, Mexico, and countries in the European Union. In addition, because these types of calls are harbingers of later harm, consumers may subsequently need a record of such events and/or physical protection as a consequence of unwanted calls.
Preferably, called parties would report unwanted or unlawful calls to jurisdictional authorities and these authorities would respond as necessary and appropriate. However, beyond merely reporting that an unwanted or unlawful calling event occurred, called parties may have little additional useful or meaningful information which authorities can use to take action against the caller. Although caller ID capability generally may provide called parties with originating telephone numbers, not all called parties subscribe to caller ID service, and calling parties have means available to them for spoofing numbers that do not belong to them or blocking delivery of their numbers even when caller ID delivery service is used by the called party. Therefore, in the event of an unlawful communication, the called party may not have direct access to the calling party number (CPN) in order to report it. However, the number is stored in a designated location in the public network. Since the CPN is stored in the public network, it may be accessible by a called party without actually being visible to the called party.
Local switching standards and requirements obligate telephone service providers to deliver and store CPN in most circumstances. Often, CPN can be “seen” by a subscriber if the subscriber is provided with Caller ID delivery service. That is, when a subscriber to Caller ID service receives a display of the calling party's telephone number and/or name, that number is the number used to populate the CPN Register. Because CPN is delivered even if the called party does not subscribe to Caller ID service, the local switch always has the most recent CPN in memory.
For legal, regulatory, and/or technical reasons, certain information about each complete or incomplete call attempt (a call where the called party does not answer) remains stored in memory for at least some period of time. For example, for billing purposes, call information, including parameters such as originating and terminating telephone numbers and call duration, is captured within the public network, typically at the originating end, for delivery to a Revenue Accounting Office (RAO) within the internal network of the originator's service provider (or equivalent). In at least some cases, these data are aggregated at the originating end and transferred in bulk to the RAO at a convenient time. Some parameters, such as CPN, remain stored at the terminating end, but only temporarily.
Unwanted or unlawful calls can range from simple pranks to significant threats to individual property and public safety. The earlier in time law enforcement obtains detailed information about the caller placing the unlawful call, the more likely that the risk of harm can be reduced. Without the ability to provide meaningful data to law enforcement authorities of such events at or near the time they happen, law enforcement officials are limited in their abilities to rapidly enforce laws against unlawful communications or to identify the calling party and the calling party's location.
In addition, certain laws or regulations, such as the United States Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Telemarketing Sales Rules, require that a business maintain a list of telephone numbers for consumers who express a desire not to be solicited by telephone, known as a “Do-Not-Call” (DNC) list, and take appropriate measures to ensure that outgoing calls to telephone numbers on DNC lists are blocked. The DNC lists may include one or more lists specific to a particular business, as well as state-wide, national and industry-imposed lists such as the Direct Marketing Association Telephone Preference Service list. Other DNC laws may define how, when, to whom and under what conditions consumers and businesses may be contacted. A single violation of a federal or state DNC regulation can result in a substantial fine.
Generally speaking, laws exist in many jurisdictions to deter or punish unwanted and unlawful callers. Despite the existence of such laws, many violations occur and go unreported on a daily basis due to the often complicated effort required to obtain calling party data and to file a complaint with the appropriate jurisdictional authority. In most cases the complaining party must initiate the complaint with law enforcement, which may require CPN information or the name of a caller in order to accept a complaint. This problem is compounded when a caller does not identify themselves, misidentifies themselves, the called party does not subscribe to caller ID service or the stored CPN changes because of a later call. In practice, the requirement that a person being called must know where to file the complaint, capture the required information that may not be available to them, and take the time to actually file the complaint, eliminates all but a very small percentage of viable and enforceable complaints. Currently there is no system whereby the complainant can be assured that law enforcement receives available CPN data directly before the data are destroyed through the normal course of business and in a timely manner that allows law enforcement to quickly identify, locate and act on unlawful activity.